PS. Pro-lifers (because lets face it who else is it likely to be?) do what Al Qaeda has been unable to do in eight years--strike at a symbol of American Modernity--and Raphael is still talking "honor killings".

Note that Ontario does not have a section 13 analogue, although you are not allowed to publish material announcing an intention to discriminate (like signs reading "No blacks need apply" and that kind of thing). Since there is no other one element of the Ontario code that excites Speechys the way a hate speech provision would, PC candidates, if they want to go trolling for the Speechy vote, have to take the more radical approach of a Hillier or a Hudak (ie. abolish the whole thing).

...my understanding of how Twitter works is that anyone who puts the '#roft' in their message will automatically contribute to the feed. I'm not sure if people can be banned from it.My understanding of twitter is even less than this guy's, so I don't know if he's correct or not. Anyone want to give it a try?

And then I suppose the next question is: how much subversion can you cram into 140 characters?

Now here is an interesting survey, and its summarized in the pie graphs below:An intelligent if somewhat academic discussion ensues on Crooked Timbers, with a certain amount of shock and disbelief among progressives there. A lot of questioning of methodology and so forth. One commentor ventures the following rather strong statement:

One theory I occasionally entertain is that 9/11 brought about a sea-change in attitudes towards Israel and the Palestinian resistance, and this has had a spillover effect on attitudes towards Jews in general, primarily among the American/Canadian Right.

Before that date it seemed easier to argue that the Palestinians were entitled to their intifada, even when this involved the employment of suicide bombers. Afterwards, after being on the other end of a series of suicide attacks, a larger segment of the U.S. Republicans (and maybe Candian Conservatives?) are likely to have a visceral, negative response to such arguments. Pro-Israel sentiment has therefore generalized to Pro-Jewish sentiment.

Note that the Stelmach Tories have 72 of the 83 seats in the Alberta Legislature. The fate of amendment A4 was entirely in their hands. Note that the whole process of Bill 44 was an exercise in balancing off the rights (pandering to?) Alberta's Socon and Gay communities. Speechies got sweet FA. Suck on that, Speechies.

I am not going to bother to "refute" Beattie's story. That would be like engaging with a Nigerian email scammer in the hopes that this one really IS the wife of a rich dictator. If you really want, Mitka applies some of the old disinfectant here. But, really, can Ezra troll any lower? This whole Speechy War has degenerated into a freak-show.

As Ms. O'Malley notes, today the Citizenship and Immigration Committee will be hosting a number of disgruntled caregivers. The topic is “ghost consultants and migrant workers”, the former being

...rogue immigration consultants who are not authorized to practice, but continue to do so, collect a fee and make their clients sign official documents in lieu of themselves.

...which seems a bit tangential to Dhallagate, so who knows if Ruby's name will come up. But one of the industry reps, Terry C. Olayta, Coordinator of the Caregiver Resource Centre, has already demanded Ruby's resignation, and this seems to be the official position of the CRC. Will he renew the call?

Kadey will be live-blogging the gory details.

Update: The meeting was called off afer an hour when Mr. Olayta and one other witness failed to show. One thing we did learn is that Ruby's nannies never filed a complaint with the CCA (Canadian Live-In Caregivers Association). This goes with a complaint not filed with the Ontario Ministry of Labour.

His changes say that for parents to be notified, the class must be "primarily and explicitly" about religion, human sexuality or sexual orientation.

The word "primarily" is new. It means (or so Blackett hopes) that no child can be taken out of any class just because one of those topics happens to come up.

"This is not meant to get Johnny out of math class because you're upset with the teacher, or get Johnny out of biology class because you don't want the teaching of evolution," the minister says.

The changes, he promises, make it clear that teachers are not prohibited from making "indirect references" to the hot-button subjects.

They will still be free, for instance, to talk about gay rights in a social studies class or religion in a conversation about science.

"We are going to make it clear that our intention is not to interfere with a teacher's ability to have discussions with students," says the minister. "They should not feel threatened or under duress."

Finally, as if to show how silly all this has become, the act will now refer to classes about "human sexuality" rather than just "sexuality."Actually, this last bit is not at all silly. Every kid in Alberta wants to know how the dinosaurs did it. Its actually a bit of a mystery. Good to know that Alberta teachers will be able to have at the subject in an unconstrained fashion (lots of hissing and whooping).

Of course, Ms. Dhalla has just sealed her nomination in Brampton-Springdale, so I doubt a resignation is in the cards.

Finally, this story from last week, in which Ruby's brother Neil Dhalla was accused of firing one of his staff when they became pregnant, seems to have dead-ended. There has been no follow-up on CBC or elsewhere that I am aware of, although plenty of fake outrage from Conservative bloggers. If any of the various sub-threads to this story reek of Tory interference, this is the one that reeks most--a frivolous sounding OHRT complaint launched in the midst of the controversy. Who if anyone urged on the complainant?

Rather disappointing is the fact that yankee enviros have written very little about this issue (other than a few short pieces I remember seeing at Grist). Don't know if its because it has gone under the radar in all the struggles over Waxman-Markey, or whether there's a little bit of protectionism in their mental makeup.

Well, the veracity of this letter has been established. In it, the past president of the Brampton Seniors Club, Aurora G. Villanueva, takes back her support for Ms. Dhalla (and the implied support of the club itself). She was sick when she read the letter prepared for her by Ruby's people; she didn't read it closely; she's no longer president and can't speak on the club's behalf; she's been ridiculed by other Filipinos. A whole litany of complaints.

The fellow through whose hands the letter passed en route to the care givers resource center, Rodel J. Ramos, seems to be known as an advocate for domestic workers within the Filipino community, and occasionally writes for a few local Filpino media outlets (will try to find the links on this). Nothing too damning on the group's message board, although there was a desire to see the issue maintain its media profile after those committee hearings last week, as well as a desire to remain above the Liberal/Tory political mudfight.

Meanwhile, this statement from the lawyer of Magdalene Gordo and Richelyn Tongson, two of Ruby's nannies, has been floating about the net for the past week or so. It looks like Ms. Gordo does have a history of complaining about her employers:

Third, it was most recently alleged by Ms. Dhalla’s lawyer that Ms. Gordo previously made similar allegations of mistreatment with respect to a former employer. Presumably, this allegation is being advanced to make the point that somehow Ms. Gordo is less credible because she had alleged mistreatment previously. It is shocking that this allegation has been made at all without the identity of the accuser being known. Regardless, Ms. Gordo confirms that she did work for the family in question for 1 month following which she complained that she had been forced to work on Christmas, Boxing Day and New Year’s day but had not been adequately remunerated.Finally, the last paragraph makes it sound like the two nannies will not be taking any legal action against Ms. Dhalla.

Ms. Tongson and Ms. Gordo will not be making any further statements or comments at this time. While they are happy to have had the opportunity to tell their story and for the extra attention it has brought to the plight of caregivers in this country, they wish to return to their regular lives and to concentrate on the families for whom they presently work.So it is to be trial by TV.

Because you think you are winning the debate they initiated, and that debate will continue until the ads stop running (not when the chattering classes grow tired of them). So you want your counter-argument in the news as well for as much of that time-frame as possible. At this point I think the Libs would like to keep these various CPoC attacks center-stage as long as they can; the ads provide a nice contrast with what Ignatieff is up to these days.

By the way, aesthetic merits aside, what is the point of a website like Ignatieff.me? Is anyone but the hardest of hardcore poli-junkies going to ever visit it more than once? Unless you're going to run a continual stream of updates, it essentially becomes a one-off gag. And the official party website exists for that kind of thing (updates, not gags).

This isn't just a Conservative fault. It seems parties are continually launching static web-pages that nobody is likely to visit a 2nd time. I don't see the point to it.

Also, Perezhudak is a neat site, where we learn that Randy Hillier got bounced from the Ontario Legislature last week "after calling Liberal cabinet ministers liars". We also learn that Randy is writing for CanadaFreePress. A good sign, then, that his supporters are crazy.

But what I really want to know is: where is Ezra digging up this stuff? The notion that he is doing "research" in the TO Star's online archive is not plausible. Ezra don't do research; typically, he recycles bullshit. So where, in this case, is the bullshit coming from?

I should say to start I have lived in a very non-competitive housing market--Toronto in the late 80s, where a land-lord cord charge you $400 a month for a cot next to the furnace--and at the time ran into a mixed race couple, one very pregnant, who could not find a place that would rent to them. I gave them a few phone numbers to try, and wished them luck.

(If I remember correctly, a "balanced" rental market is about 5% vacant. Toronto's current rate is 2.1%, hasn't been competitive in at least 25 years.)

Now, that's just an anecdote, but Flanagan himself is offering nothing but deductions from sterile economic theory. To assume that 1) people make these kinds of decision rationally, or 2) will not routinely make rational or at least calculated decisions on the basis of values other than economic values (religious values, for example,which might entail a disapproval of Martian sexual practices), or 3) can never become wealthy enough to indulge their prejudices... is naive in the extreme.

More generally, this "if we didn't have human rights laws the market would make human rights problems go away" is the same line of nonsense Ezra peddles. I'm surprised Flanagan didn't try to blame it all on the Canadian Jewish Congress.

Meanwhile, a few adults within with Ontario Tories are wondering about the wisdom of front-runner Tim Hudak modelling his campaign platform on that of right-wing yahoo Randy Hillier in his call for abolishing the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal:

Sorry, so do you expect to provide funding or support to legitimate victims of discrimination so they can make claims in civil court? For example, if an employer tells me he will only hire me if I perform sexual favours, right now, I could go to the Human Rights Tribunal and claim gender-based discrimination, and sexual harassment. Are you going to provide the legal support so I can file a similar claim or do you expect all claimants to hire their own lawyers at a rate of $300 or so an hour? Isn’t an open system where claimants can go as individuals provide much more access to justice?Or:

I consider myself a Conservative and a supporter of Tim. Up until the past two years, I never paid much attention to the Human Rights Tribunal or Commission, or really even the Code because it never affected me. That was before my husband was diagnosed with Bipolar Disorder 2 at the age of 44.

[...]

We believe the employer, the Union and the arbitrator violated my husband’s human rights. We have now filed an application with the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario. Tim has spoken publicly about assisting the middle-class family. We are it! We cannot afford a lawyer that costs $350/hour nor are we eligible for legal support. Where can we be heard if not the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario? What does Tim suggest we do?

Don't know if Kinsella will be operating the McGuinty war-room next time around, but I suspect he's chuckling away somewhere in some dark cave even now. Who cares whether or not the next Tory leader is Randy Hillier, as long as that leader embraces the Hillier agenda?

Saturday, May 16, 2009

This morning my wife and I walked from Byward Market to The Nature Museum way out on Metcalfe near the highway. Large parts of it were closed, and admission to the rest was free before noon. So in the end we saw the Screaming Kid exhibit on Floor 2, and the Crying Kid exhibit on Floor 4. My digicam's battery died just as I was taking a picture of a prehistoric whale skeleton, so I can't even prove I was there.

Later, I spent a very enjoyable and informative couple of hours drinking alcohol with Macleans Magazine's blogging superstar Kady O'Malley. It will probably take a week to process all the political info I picked up during that time.

As an aside, Ms. O'Malley is ultra-cool, immensely charming, but really, really tiny. Thankfully, I didn't try to hit on her or wear a lampshade or anything stupid like that.

...for the long weekend. So far the highlight has been me taking a service elevator by mistake and getting lost in the hotel's underground kitchen complex. I can now say with confidence that the Marriot's kitchen meets all federal and provincial standards for cleanliness.

Later today I will be meeting with several Ottawa power-players and discussing the state of the revolution. Regular readers shall await instructions as to when and in what manner to rise up. Keep your Birkenstocks and lattes at your side, brothers and sisters, for soon we march!

Friday, May 15, 2009

Since Steyn wants to go another round on this, let me just mention this more time. In his Macleans blog post "That poor woman down the street", from March of 2008, Mr. Steyn accused CHRC investigator Dean Steacy by name of engaging in criminal acts. These allegations were never credible to start with, and already pretty thoroughly refuted even before the RCMP and Privacy Commission finally dismissed them.

Yet there they remain on the Maclean's website.

So let me say it one more time: Mark, you made a mistake. You laundered a boatload of crap passed off as "research" by white supremacists and reproduced it in Canada's national news-magazine.

Every link given in the above goes back to CTV's campaign to charge "carriage fees" to the cable companies, or to its pro-carriage fee petition. I of course did not sign the petition, but a friend did:Galactus is a regular petition whore.

Not quite sure what is meant here, but my guess would be the teachers are concerned that parents might be able to request an opt-out where, for example, a biology text containing a chapter on Darwin was being used even though the class in question did not concern that chapter.

Meanwhile, Rob Breakenridge laments. He's quite right that AHRC opponents like Bishop Henry have sold their souls over this bill (which the Bishop supports with caveats), but this part is baloney:

Just when it seemed that public demand and political will would finally result in a reining in of the province's much-maligned human rights regime, the Alberta government has fashioned a resurrection of almost Biblical proportions.Public demand? Or the demands of a few hundred journalists, fringe righties, and blogosphere scribblers?

You know, one thing politicians know how to do better than anyone is count votes. The Stelmach government looked around and realized that the over-haul of their Human Rights Act would involve balancing the demands of the Gay and SoCon communities. If Speechies got stiffed (and they did), that's because the Stelmach government realized there weren't enough of them to be worth the fuss.

...a line from the CPoC's email intro to their new anti-Ignatieff campaign. Here's Andrew Steele on why they probably won't prove terribly effective. I would add to that that Mr. Ignaetieff seems quite capable of leaping to his own defense in both official languages--something that wasn't so much the case with his esteemed predecessor--even if his french accent is Parisian (presumably he doesn't refer to them as "Les Hotdogs").

Wednesday, May 13, 2009

2) Go to the "share section". You should see a an image this at the top left of your computer screen

Our ever stupid CPoC, not having learned the first time around, is using a remailer that lets you send emails from the new site, alerting people to the new site. A few hints:

a) "Your Email" can be anything. It doesn't have to really exist. That's also the line that seems to have the most characters available to you if you want to compose and send a subversive counter-message.

b) The "To" line gives you about 15 characters.

c) The "From" line seems to have more characters available than the "To" line.

d) The text of the email you send will be boiler-plate:

Your friend stockwell day thinks Michael Ignatieff is just visiting. Michael Ignatieff has made his choice: after over 30 years away he has come back to Canada, but only if he can be Prime Minister. In short, he’s just visiting.To find out more visit http://www.ignatieff.me/. It's not about stockwell day. It's just about him.

Unfortunately, there doesn't seem much you can do about to change this text, but your subversive message WILL appear in the header info of any email you send from the site.

So use your imagination and send "the gift of Iggy" to all the reporters on your contact list. Make the story of the new website and new ad campaign be that they are idiotic.

Not the provisions related to hate-speech, the whole darn thing, to be replaced with " a court-based system operating under the rules of evidence" with "specially trained judges". So, scrap one system that alleged "cost millions" with an entirely new system that will, presumably, cost millions.

Not much excitement from the usual Speechy gang. I guess they are starting to smell the bullshit. If a Tory majority in Alberta won't move, what hope is there in Ontario? (Answer: none. This is a transparent attempt to out-flank Randy Hillier in time for the PCPO convention.)

...which sounds perhaps more extensive than a mere five minute encounter.

Now, one shouldn't got too far with this. Clearly the nannies in question had concerns, and had expressed these concerns to various people, prior to April 2009. On the other hand, Kenney and co. were very swift to milk the issue when it first hit the papers. Did Ms. Valesco really say nothing to Minister Kenney, and was there no contact between the minister and the nannies previous to the story breaking? Note Kenney's slightly weaselly responses to questions as to when and if he had met the nannnies here.

And, on the other other hand, we are three weeks into this "scandal", and no complaints (as far as I know) have been filed by the nannies with the Ontario Ministry of Labor. This whole thing is being decided in the newspapers. If the charges against Ms. Dhalla are to be considered credible, then something more serious than the making of allegations has got to happen.

Sounds expensive (rigging out your parking spot for recharging costs about $5,000), but still, Vancouver has been been doing a lot along these lines. Probably Canada's greenest city at the moment (love those rooftop gardens on the condo buildings).

Mostly, it seems, the party has been giving that far right forum the rubber-glove treatment. They've been burned too many times, I suppose. But, according to Connie Fournier, this changed for a short time at the end of last year:

Well, its false. The Libs lose their majority next year. The Tories don't get one for another couple of years (2011, I think), so Senate Reform is a non-starter for quite awhile yet.

Wonder if this is a matter of the MSM just getting it wrong or Tory sources feeding them crap in the hopes that their political base is similarly fooled when they read it in the paper.

In any case, my guess would be that, come 2011 or whenever and a Tory Senate majority, Harper and Co. find a reason to support the status quo. They've swallowed their principles often enough to assume it will happen again.